\o/ \o/ \o/ vs $$$$$$$ never mind ?????

Religion vs Money, never mind science.

I often thought that religion's biggest obstacle is science because science is about questioning, while religion is about taking things on faith.

I'm beginning to see religion's biggest obstacle as money. They appear to be working together but are actually working in opposition as the world becomes more complex.

Today people want to over simplify complexity by basing all there hopes and efforts on ever-decreasing, fewer things. Follow it to its logical conclusion, and the question of what is the most important thing always comes up. Currently this divides the world into those more interested in this life, and those more interested in the hope of an afterlife.

It all comes down to trust. Everyone trusts something and most believe that most others should trust that same something. Those who trust that an afterlife exist and that they know the way to make the most of it, trust religion. Those who trust that this life is more important or don't believe in an afterlife trust the laws of science, nature and economics more.

So where does money come in? Everything involved in this life is considered either material or at least hard to measure without a system based on material gain. The most widely accepted system for measuring material gain is money.

It's all about promises. Both religion and money are the primary tools to motivate people in this world. Both religion and money are based on promises. Religion promises reward or repayment in the afterlife. Money promises reward and repayment in this (mortal) life . Both systems can be manipulated. Both systems can be based on lies. And yet both systems are more powerful at motivating the masses than any other system. It would be nice if we didn't have to blindly trust either.

Your thoughts?

Bill, In a linear world yes, in a multivariate world, probably not. Socio-political power has a tendency to get distributed in Triads. When Money and Science joins appendages, Religion
loses Power, When Religion and Money join hands, Science loses Power and when Science and
Religion joins hands, Money loses Power. How would you adapt the model to account for the
phenomenon of Triads?

That's an interesting triad, and probably sound. The only question is if it's possible for all three forces to join.

For people like you and I who think holistically, the triad is more relevant. For those who think individualistically, the opposition is more relevant. My point was not that the opposition is incapable of settling their differences. They are more than capable. My point is that when there is differences, and people choose to combat rather than collaborate with the opposition, money and religion are bigger enemies than money and science or religion and science. Although money and religion appear to join forces, they are canceling the effectiveness of either more than helping.

The mafia says "keep your friends close, and your enemies closer". Perhaps that's what we are seeing with the dysfunctional marriage between religion and money.

Yea, us scientists are sometimes such wusses, we're seldom in the real game but then, emergent
evolution seems to favor us...so who knows?

The three points of the triad are joined when the system of triadic distribution of power is consistent with
and integrated with its larger encompasing system. When the Leadership of A is supported by the
combined efforts of B and C and contributes to the larger whole, the larger whole rewards
all three (and in a fair, democratically regulated social system), according to their contribution,
after providing a living wage to everyone.

My thoughts.

1. The things (tangible rewards) that money can buy usually produce immediate satisfaction, so sure, the promise of the rewards of earning money and spending it is a great motivator for many people. But, the "high" felt from purchasing things doesn't last long so the "promise" turns into a sort of "lie" when the good feeling is fleeting. So, a decision is made...do I earn more for the sake of buying more to ensure the good feelings keep on coming (blind trust in the power of money and what it can buy)....or do I adjust my spending downward knowing that money and the things it can buy do not keep me feeling "good" for very long ( no blind trust here). I then examine other ways that might lead to more lasting inner satisfaction.

2. I think that people have faith in the promise of an afterlife mainly because it relieves angst about our mortality, it allows humans to feel some modicum of control about the mortlity we all face...if we do this and do that we will be rewarded for our "goodness" or "right deeds". Since we don't know for sure about an afterlife (faith) there's nothing to refute it as there is about the "rewards" of material possessions. Some people I know who strongly believe in an afterlife say that without that belief they would feel no "hope", so yes they "blindly" believe in something that gets them through the days.
Interesting thoughts you put out here, Bill. And I think the issues you raise are complicated. Anything involving human behavior is complicated.
We know that some who "blindly" follow the teachings of Islam feel it's their duty to murder 'infidels" and that these deeds will ensure their place in heaven. What has to happen to turn that thinking around? A McDonalds on every corner isn't going to do it. Promises of everlasting life, of a life even better than that on Earth is a powerful motivator for many people.

I haven't seen anything done to turn that thinking around. What I think the neocons are banking on is that fundamentalist extremists will get tired of losing in their mortal lives. But the neocons seem to forget that it's not necessarily material wealth in our "enemies" own mortal lives that they are protecting. On some level the "enemies" are protecting the mortal lives and wealth of their survivors. But at the moment we seem to be losing as much money as our perceived "enemies" are losing lives. And they don't seem to have much else to lose on a material level. So it's difficult to say who is winning that game or even if it's the game some of them are playing.

No matter what their motives are, there's no evidence that we are turning around their willingness to murder "infidels". There is plenty of evidence that we are giving them more reason to murder "infidels".

Back to the subject of Religion vs Money, your example is a case of religion in money in violent opposition more than peaceful collaboration.

I don't understand wht you're saying here. Would you clarify what "money in religion in violent opposition more than peaceful collaberation"" means?

Interesting. It is said that our Perceptions are three fold. Reason (logic), Emotional (feeling), and Intuitive (hunches).

Science would seem to correspond to the first; Science to Reason, and Intuitive to Religion. Money does give Emotional satisfaction, and a feeling of security. Just thinking out loud.

But not to complicate things more. If Science and Religion can be reconciled. IE; A "Science of the Spirit", and certain basic beliefs be verified or debunked. Such as survival of the spirit after death, and even possibly reincarnation. Then money and the pursuit of it would probably be modified.

Interesting article in Discover Magazine, June 2007. The article is "Soul search..Can Science Ever Decipher The Secrets Of The Human Soul? I think you will enjoy reading this TRoU if you can find it. It talks about quantum mechanics...subatomic phenomena that produce consciousness, reincarnation, etc. Fascinating.

In the example you give about murdering "infidels", fundamentalist religious extremists are violently opposing the corrupt influences of our material wealth and money in their territory. Our money and material wealth our buying weapons and private contracts to violently oppose fundamentalist religious extremists.

Thanks amy. I'll see if I can find it.

Right...money and religion in violent opposition, in this case. Certainly a military war waged on radical Islam only increases the radicals' desire to continue to wage their brand of war on the corrupting influence in their territories. So, it's a war of radical Isalm vs. capitalism? Do these radicals' murderous acts represent the will of the majority of those in their territories? If not, maybe the "moderates" should make a really strong effort to convince the radicals that perhaps money spent on their bombs, etc would be better spent on improving conditions within their societies. Money and material goods do not have to corrupt societies. ( I don't think). Certainly, there are nonviolent methods for confronting corrupting influences within a society. But anyway, military war isn't going to solve the problem..the moderates within these societies have to gain more power than the radicals and have to marginalize them, IMO. I think any society suffers if money becomes a "god" or if people wage war in the name of a "god". Complicated and I have no idea how material wealth and religion in some societies can be reconciled unless a society is governed by a theocracy.

Here it is.

http://discovermagazine.com/2007/jun/soul-search

And there you have it, a key motive for theocracy over western capitalism.

Yes...I think a key motive for Christian fundamentalism in our nation, as well.

I would say it's a key motive, but less of a motive now than when Christianity was founded.

Today fundamentalist Christians are more motivated by the intolerance, instant reward and wrath (material and spiritual) of the Old Testament than the tolerance and charity of the New Testament. Many modern Christians (both moderate and fundamentalist) are also more tolerant of excessive material wealth for individuals as long as it appears to be a "blessing from God". They often attribute the lack of material blessing in this mortal life to the tolerance of what they perceive to be immoral behavior such as abortion and homosexuality. Feeding into the materialism and hypocrisy, the question of morality isn't raised as much with charity as it's perceived as not really helping the poor help themselves.

Greedy, miserly and blessed at the same time. Can't beat that for a "feel good" earthly experience. Interesting. I never thought of it in terms of the CF looking to the OT more than the NT for spiritual guidance. However, I do believe their unwavering support for Israel is based on how they interpret the OT.

So, I wonder if the CF are more interested in saving their own souls than in saving the bodies and souls of others through charity, tolerance, through example?. I wonder if that also might be true of radical Islamic fundamentalists? Just thinking out loud, here.

I can't speak for the Muslims, but they do seem to be more dedicated to their religion than Christians.

Saving ones soul first goes back to the beginning. There is nothing in scripture to suggest that it should be any other way, which leaves modern evangelicals quick to "shake the dust off of their feet" with skeptics. However, beyond saving ones soul, saving other souls is expected to be put before saving ones own hide or material possessions.

Since perhaps the death of Jesus, the amount of charity in Christianity has steadily declined. Churches have moved from being primarily providers of material needs to primarily solicitors of charitable contributions.

As for saving other souls (evangelism), that still the primary goal of most CF and moderate churches. The original Christians relied on compassion through charity to evangelize. The thinking then was that people in the brutal Roman Empire would see a charitable compassionate group as a breath of fresh air, and want to be part of it. Modern evangelism has become more of a passive effort in moderate churches and a fear mongering effort in fundamentalist Churches. Mega-churches now operate more like for-profit businesses than community centers. Money for charity is spent on facilities and salaries of the evangelicals more than it's spent on fulfilling the needs of poor for the sake of evangelism.

With the conservative disciplinarian influence, charity is treated as more of a hinderance to saving souls than a means, as if it only serves to feed an addiction. They take the concept of "teach a man to fish" to "teach a man to fish as long as they bring their own pole an bait on a day that it's convenient for the teacher." They call the poor to make more sacrifices rather than sacrifice for the poor. It's used as a excuse to sanction selfish material greed (enjoying ones material blessings from god for being a good Christian) in the same way that tax-cuts in a time of war are used to keep the upper-middle class and rich in favor of the war.

What is the antidote for Christian or Muslem Extreme Fundamentalism? A deep sense of belonging
in the Family, Community and Nation? We Liberal must express more appreciation to Conservatives for teaching us to conserve, even if they never seemed to get their priorites
straight about what to preserve. The subject of inquirery and the object of our devotion is
the Indivdual Person. The goverment and the social system starts and ends with the Individual Person.

That is the very essence of "populism". Populism has been stolen from the Liberal Left. We have to take it back from those who are false populists. They are liars, and have already betrayed those in Rural America who believed they cared about the average man.

And the way We are driving our current social systen rewards them with positions of Power-brokerage. Take away the outer fringe of the DLC and what's left is mostly the national
power brokeridge for Democrats, wheras, State and Community Organizations of Democrats
are free to make it on their own as long as they send in their dues. I understand that Chairperson,
Dean took on the Self-appointed Task of Reforming the Democratic Party to make it a 50-States, Grass-roots, Representative, Bottoms-up Organization, with branch offices in every County in
every State. As long as Dean, representing us, is not part of the Pelosi and Reed power triad,
they can play footsie with whomever they want, one at a time...

Education is the antidote. Fundamentalism is a form of oversimplification for those who don't have all the facts or those who can't handle the complexity of all the facts. They either need education of the facts or education on how to handle complexity such as economics, chaos theory, or emergence.

Once people see the big picture clearer, it's easy to understand where they fit in and how to contribute.

Getting priorities straight about what to preserve is the first step.

This is more of a conflict between urban and rural lifestyle than political leadership. Politicians can't please everyone when everyone's interests are incompatible. Until rural America is just as tolerant of diversity and alternative lifestyles as urban America, the future will continue to be their biggest enemy.

To put Urban vs Rural in the context of this thread, rural has religion on it's side while urban has money on it's side. Since educational institutes depend on population, urban has science on its side. If the population continues to grow, urban also has time on its side.

In moving from Religion vs Money to Rural vs Urban, to Folk Wisdom vs Science one could move up to the next more general factor of space vs time, which are the horizontal and vertical axes of the Universe. Perhaps our best record of the evolution of our species is the record of the evolution of
Human Language. Human Behavior appears to be structured similarilly to Human Language...
At hiearchial levels of abstraction across domains of self-in-situation adaptation: biological, psychological, social, economic, technological, political, spiritual, etc. I think the most important point to this discussion is the importance of Awareness for reading what is going on at multiple levels of conceptualization and to apply that across all relevant domains of inquirry.

This is certain to lose some people in the debate: Space is on the side of rural. Time is on the side of urban. So I guess space would be on the side of religion and money would be on the side of time.

I don't know whether we lost people in time or in space. Since reality, for any individual Person
is the intersect of time and space, they seem inseparable. Does it follow that neither Religion
or Money could exist without the other? They both have part-whole relations to Community.
In addition to a designated space, community requires a system for the exchange of goods
and services (money), a common communication system (language and technology), a
common sense of purpose, values and traditions (Religion or philosophy of Life) and other
components. Perhaps we need to take a second look at the concept of, "Religion vs Money."

Or another way to look at this issue is to raise the question, What is the major force preventing the impeachment of Cheny and Bush? Money or Religion?

I believe religion could and probably once existed without money. It's likely that religion predates money.

Money is nothing more than a common communication system. Until the internet, money was the most powerful communication system on the planet. That means a superior communication system such as the internet could potentially replace it.

Information is the currency of the internet. The value of that currency is based on it's ability to prove its own accuracy. We will always need a form of currency. However it is possible that the currency of money may be rendered obsolete. It's hard to imagine, especially since we needed money to get the internet going. But we also needed the gold standard to get paper money going.

Money. Money paid to politicians to maintain the status quo.

"Money is nothing more than a common communication system." This seems to change the commonly accepted definition of Money, a medium of exchange of goods and services.

Time is manmade. I find space the most interesting and creative factor of all these ideas.

Would you explain what you mean by the statement, "Time is manmade"?

(The idea of units of time rla.) Man has marked time for thousands of years. Would God use a clock?

Thanks, I see what you mean about time. I don't know whether God would use a clock. I understand that he sent one of his boys to Earth to mess arround with the calendar.

Time was one of the areas we wandered into back in Art and Aesthetics in college. I found aesthetics an eye opener.

Everything is a medium of exchange. A hammer is a medium to exchange energy. A wire is a medium to exchange electrons. A fiber optic wire is a medium to exchange photons. A grocery basket is a medium to exchange goods. Hair clippers are a medium to exchange services. A hijacked 747 fully loaded with explosive fuel is a medium to exchange hostility.

Since money can only physically exchange perceived information about debt, money is nothing more than a common communication system. If you were to bring money to a tribe isolated from civilization as we know it, your money would mean nothing to them. The paper would be no more useful than toilet paper.